Studying In Govt Institute Doesn't Give Automatic Right To Govt Job : Supreme Court Rejects 'Legitimate Expectation' Claim

The Supreme Court has held that mere admission to and completion of a course in a government institution does not create a legitimate expectation of automatic appointment to a government post, particularly when there is a change in policy and recruitment framework.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh's plea against the Allahabad High Court's decision to grant appointment to the Respondents just because they had a legitimate expectation to be employed after getting admission to the training course. In essence, the court ruled that candidates admitted to a government training course acquire no vested right to merely because of past practice, especially when a subsequent policy change and a massive increase in the number of eligible candidates fundamentally alters the recruitment landscape.

It was argued by the Respondent-candidates that when the past practice offered automatic employment to the erstwhile candidates who were admitted to the Ayurvedic Nursing training course, then there arose a legitimate expectation that they would also be offered employment as staff nurses pursuant to their admission to the training course.

Rejecting the Respondent's contention, the bench accepted the State's contention that no appointments were made to candidates admitted to the training programme after 2011, noting that the earlier practice of automatic appointment was confined to just 20 seats and was driven by circumstantial necessity. Once private institutions were permitted to offer the course, leading to a sharp rise in the number of candidates far exceeding available posts, the government was justified in discontinuing the earlier practice.

“…we need to add that in the case in hand, the past practice was merely on the basis of the situation at the relevant time when there were only 20 seats for imparting education for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course and only one government institution was authorized to conduct the course. Since there were more vacancies, most of them may have been adjusted. However, subsequently there was change in the policy as number of private institutions were permitted to impart education for the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course. It is also on record that there were no appointments made by following the earlier system available after 15.12.2014, except few as is evident the letter dated 28.05.2015. It is evident therefrom that only the candidates who were admitted till the year 2010-11 were given appointment and that too due to Court order. The private colleges were permitted to impart education thereafter.”, the court observed.

Background

The dispute arose after the State discontinued its long-standing practice of appointing all candidates trained under a 20-seat government Ayurvedic nursing course as Staff Nurses. For decades, such appointments were made without a competitive process due to limited seats and a large number of vacancies. However, from 2011 onwards, private institutions were permitted to run the same course, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of trained candidates.

Subsequently, in 2014, recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse was brought under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC), and formal service rules were notified in 2021. The State took the position that appointments could thereafter be made only through a competitive selection process.

Candidates who had completed training from government institutions approached the High Court, claiming that decades of past practice had created a legitimate expectation of appointment. Accepting this plea, the High Court directed the State to appoint them.

Reversing the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bindal held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not an independent or absolute right and must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

"It may be far-fetched to apply the principle of legitimate expectation to the case in hand as there was a change in policy and scheme of government...While advertisements for private colleges explicitly state that admission does not grant a right to appointment, the absence of this specific disclaimer in government college advertisements does not mean a right to appointment is automatically implied."

The Court noted that neither the 1986 government order nor the training advertisements contained any explicit promise of automatic appointment. It further clarified that the bond requiring candidates to serve the government for five years applied only if they were selected and appointed, and did not guarantee employment.

“Statutory rules governing the post had not been framed earlier, and the same came to be framed in the year 2021. There was change in the process of selection as well, namely, earlier the selection was being made by UPPSC, now it was being made by UPSSSC. Further, after the change in policy of the government permitting private institutions to impart training for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, the availability of candidates was much more as compared to the earlier regime where only 20 seats in the government institution were there. The available vacancies with the government being less, the normal rule provides for a selection process to be followed so that the best available candidate is selected. There is no violation of Article 14 as, in the facts of this case, it cannot be opined that there was any discrimination against the respondents or that the action of the State was arbitrary. The essence of discrimination is the unequal treatment of equals; however, the State has clearly established that no appointments were made under the old system for any candidate admitted after the 2010-11 session. Since no batchmates of the respondent, nor any other candidates passing out after the first private college batch in 2016, were given direct appointments, there is no instance of a similarly situated person being treated preferentially. The respondent has failed to point out a single candidate from her own batch or subsequent batches who was directly appointed by the State, thereby rendering the plea of discrimination factually and legally unsustainable.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order directing the Respondents' appointment was set aside.

Cause Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. VERSUS BHAWANA MISHRA (and connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Mrigank Mishra, Adv. Ms. Gargi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR

For Applicant(s) in IA No.161094/ 2025 Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR